ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Single-Incision vs. Multiport Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: 126 Consecutive Cases at a Single Institution.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse by Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Long-Term Outcomes.International urogynecology journal · 2026Article
- Observational
- Single-Port Robotic Sacrocolpopexy: Description of an Advanced Minimally Invasive Approach and Review of the Relevant Literature.International urogynecology journal · 2024Review
- Intraoperative Complications and Perioperative and Surgical Outcomes of Single-Port Robotics-Assisted Sacrocolpopexy.International urogynecology journal · 2024Article
- Outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robot-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) has gained popularity as a method for easier intracorporeal suturing than conventional laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. However, few studies have compared multiport RSC (MP-RSC) and single-incision RSC (SI-RSC). We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between these techniques for advanced pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We analyzed 126 patients who underwent RSC for POP quantification (all stage III to IV) between March 2019 and May 2021 at Seoul Asan Medical Center. We prospectively collected operation-related data, including total operation time (OT; from skin incision to closure) and perioperative outcomes. A total of 106 and 20 patients underwent MP-RSC and SI-RSC, respectively. The mean ages were 57.49 ± 10.89 and 56.20 ± 10.30 years in the MP-RSC and SI-RSC groups, respectively. The mean total OT was significantly shorter for MP-RSC than for SI-RSC (105.43 ± 24.03 vs. 121.10 ± 26.28 min). The OT difference was 15.67 min (95% confidence interval, 3.90-25.85,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.